§

Ex Parte Samanta et al

12549780 (B.P.A.I. May. 8, 2012)
Ex Parte Samanta et al

10 Cited authorities

  1. Halliburton Energy v. M-I LLC

    514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 452 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is "indefinite if a [claim] term does not have proper antecedent basis"

  2. United States v. Chemical Foundation

    272 U.S. 1 (1926)   Cited 863 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that enemy-property custodian "was a mere conservator and was authorized to sell only to prevent waste"

  3. Hakim v. Cannon Avent

    479 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 78 times
    Finding that the district court did not err in holding applicant to arguments made during prosecution of the parent application and explaining that "[a]lthough a disclaimer made during prosecution can be rescinded, permitting recapture of the disclaimed scope, the prosecution history must be sufficiently clear to inform the examiner that the previous disclaimer, and the prior art that it was made to avoid, may need to be re-visited"

  4. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S.

    393 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 53 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding examiner demand, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105, for “information that the applicant is in the best position to most cheaply provide”

  5. Hyatt v. Dudas

    492 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 22 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Upholding the patent examiner's initial rejection in which the examiner found failure to satisfy the written description requirement because “the written description did not support the particular claimed combination of elements”— i.e., “while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was the lack of adequate description of their combination ”

  6. In re Zletz

    893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 42 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims failing this test during prosecution must be rejected under § 112, ¶ 2

  7. Strattec Security Corp. v. General Automotive Specialty Co.

    126 F.3d 1411 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that it was legal error for the district court to instruct the jury that the claim term “sheet” was not properly considered part of the claim

  8. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

  9. Section 1.105 - Requirements for information

    37 C.F.R. § 1.105   Cited 16 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) In the course of examining or treating a matter in a pending or abandoned application, in a patent, or in a reexamination proceeding, including a reexamination proceeding ordered as a result of a supplemental examination proceeding, the examiner or other Office employee may require the submission, from individuals identified under § 1.56(c) , or any assignee, of such information as may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat the matter, for example: (i)Commercial databases: The

  10. Section 41.52 - Rehearing

    37 C.F.R. § 41.52   Cited 7 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by